Differenzielles Gangtraining in der stationären Rehabilitation bei Knie- oder
               Hüft-TEP

Kurz, Johannes; Gosenheimer, A.; Schumann-Schmid, B.; Steinmetz, F.; Schöllhorn, Wolfgang I.

doi:10.1055/s-0042-119082

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 31 experiments providing data on 897 participants (DL group: n = 453; control group: n = 446). DL has been used in a variety of contexts: (1) sport performance outcomes (i.e., shot put, high jump, hurdle racing, ice skating race, and countermovement jump); (2) technical skills in a single sports movement (i.e., service in volleyball/tennis; soccer: passing, shooting accuracy, and ball control; hockey: goal shooting precision); (3) tactical skills in a sport context (i.e., during match play in basketball or soccer); (4) fine motor skills (toothbrushing, dental surgery, handle rotation, and balance); and (5) rehabilitation (Repšaite et al, 2015;Kurz et al, 2016). Mateus et al (2015), Santos et al (2017), andCoutinho et al (2018) assessed the effects FIGURE 1 | Flowchart of the search and screening process (based on the PRISMA statement template).…”

Section: Qualitative Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless of the underlying neural mechanism at play, DL has been experimentally tested in various settings with a large range in the rates of success. The initial experiments were mainly oriented toward performance in a single movement in a sport context (Schöllhorn et al, 2004;Beckmann and Schöllhorn, 2006) or laboratory tasks (James, 2014;James and Conatser, 2014), but recently, it has been adopted within more complex tactical sport contexts (Mateus et al, 2015;Coutinho et al, 2018;Santos et al, 2018), clinical settings (Repšaite et al, 2015;Kurz et al, 2016;Benjaminse et al, 2017;Pabel et al, 2017Pabel et al, , 2018Gokeler et al, 2019), and industrial production processes (Weisner et al, 2019). Collectively, these findings hold valuable information which could support trainers in developing tailored athletic training programs and working toward maximal performance, and could aid clinicians working in injury prevention and rehabilitation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Exploratory Meta-Analytic Review on the Empirical Evidence of Differential Learning as an Enhanced Motor Learning Method

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Differential learning (DL) is a motor learning method characterized by high amounts of variability during practice and is claimed to provide the learner with a higher learning rate than other methods. However, some controversy surrounds DL theory, and to date, no overview exists that compares the effects of DL to other motor learning methods.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of DL in comparison to other motor learning methods in the acquisition and retention phase.Design: Systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until February 3, 2020. To be included, (1) studies had to be experiments where the DL group was compared to a control group engaged in a different motor learning method (lack of practice was not eligible), (2) studies had to describe the effects on one or more measures of performance in a skill or movement task, and (3) the study report had to be published as a full paper in a journal or as a book chapter.Results: Twenty-seven studies encompassing 31 experiments were included. Overall heterogeneity for the acquisition phase (post-pre; I2 = 77%) as well as for the retention phase (retention-pre; I2 = 79%) was large, and risk of bias was high. The meta-analysis showed an overall small effect size of 0.26 [0.10, 0.42] in the acquisition phase for participants in the DL group compared to other motor learning methods. In the retention phase, an overall medium effect size of 0.61 [0.30, 0.91] was observed for participants in the DL group compared to other motor learning methods.Discussion/Conclusion: Given the large amount of heterogeneity, limited number of studies, low sample sizes, low statistical power, possible publication bias, and high risk of bias in general, inferences about the effectiveness of DL would be premature. Even though DL shows potential to result in greater average improvements between pre- and post/retention test compared to non-variability-based motor learning methods, more high-quality research is needed before issuing such a statement. For robust comparisons on the relative effectiveness of DL to different variability-based motor learning methods, scarce and inconclusive evidence was found.

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploratory Meta-Analytic Review on the Empirical Evidence of Differential Learning as an Enhanced Motor Learning Method

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This structure goes along with the differentiation of objective (external) and subjective (internal) information proposed from cybernetic pedagogy [25,30], and emphasizes the closer interconnection of the two internal subsystems. In addition to numerous studies in the field of sports [18], there have been increasingly positive findings in the field of rehabilitation [31], e.g., stroke patients [32], focal dystonia [33], and hip replacement [34], but no study on the rehabilitation process after ACLR has been conducted thus far.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Effects of Differential and Visuo-Motor Training on Functional Performance, Biomechanical, and Psychological Factors in Athletes after ACL Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Gholami

Letafatkar

Tabrizi

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation during practice is widely accepted to be advantageous for motor learning and is, therefore, a valuable strategy to effectively reduce high-risk landing mechanics and prevent primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Few attempts have examined the specific effects of variable training in athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Thereby, it is still unclear to what extent the variations in different sensor areas lead to different effects. Accordingly, we compared the effects of versatile movement variations (DL) with variations of movements with emphasis on disrupting visual information (VMT) in athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction. Forty-five interceptive sports athletes after ACL reconstruction were randomly allocated to a DL group (n = 15), VT group (n = 15), or control group (n = 15). The primary outcome was functional performance (Triple Hop Test). The secondary outcomes included dynamic balance (Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT)), biomechanics during single-leg drop-landing task hip flexion (HF), knee flexion (KF), ankle dorsiflexion (AD), knee valgus (KV), and vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)) assessed before and after the 8 weeks of interventions. Data were analyzed by means of 3 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA followed by post hoc comparison (Bonferroni) at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Significant group × time interaction effects, main effect of time, and main effect of group were found for the triple hop test and all eight directions, SEBT, HF, KF, AD, KV, VGRF, and TSK. There was no significant main effect of group in the HF and triple hop test. Additionally, significant differences in the triple hop test and the seven directions of SEBT, HF, KF, KV, VGRF, and TSK were found between the control group and the DL and VMT groups. Between group differences in AD and the medial direction of SEBT were not significant. Additionally, there were no significant differences between VMT and the control group in the triple hop test and HF variables. Both motor learning (DL and VMT) programs improved outcomes in patients after ACL reconstruction. The findings suggest that DL and VMT training programs lead to comparable improvements in rehabilitation.

show abstract

“…In addition to numerous studies in the field of sports [18], there are increasingly positive findings in the field of rehabilitation [31]; e.g. stroke patients [32], focal dystonia [33], and hip replacement [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Effects of Differential and Visuo-Motor Training on Functional Performance, Biomechanical, and Psychological Factors in Athletes after ACL-Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Gholami¹,

Letafatkar²,

Moghaddas-Tabrizi³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variable during practice is widely accepted to be advantageous for motor learning and therefor a valuable strategy to effectively reduce high-risk landing mechanics and prevent primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Few attempts have examined the specific effects of variable train-ing in athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Thereby it is still unclear to what extent the variations in different sensor areas lead to different effects. Accordingly, we compared the effects of versatile movement variations (DL) with variations of movements with emphasis on disrupting visual information (VMT) in athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction. For-ty-five interceptive sports athletes after ACL reconstruction were randomly allocated to a DL group (n= 15), VT group (n= 15) or control group (n= 15). The primary outcome was functional performance (Triple Hop Test). The secondary outcomes included dynamic balance (Star Excur-sion Balance Test (SEBT)), biomechanics during single-leg drop-landing task hip flexion (HF), knee flexion (KF), ankle dorsiflexion (AD), knee valgus (KV), and vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)) assessed before and after the 8-weeks of interventions. Data were analyzed be means of 3×2 repeated measures ANOVA fol-lowed by post hoc comparison (Bonferroni) at the significance level of p≤0.05. Significant group × time interaction effects, main effect of time and main effect of group were found for triple hop test, all eight directions of SEBT, HF, KF, AD, KV, VGRF and TSK. There was no significant main ef-fect of group in HF and triple hop test. Also, significant differences in triple hop test, seven direc-tions of SEBT, HF, KF, KV, VGRF and TSK were found between control group with the DL and VMT groups. Between group differences in AD and medial direction of SEBT were not signifi-cant. Also, there was no significant differences between VMT and control groups in triple hop test and HF variables. Both motor learning (DL and VMT) programs improved outcomes in patients after ACL reconstruction. Findings suggest that DL and VMT training programs lead to compa-rable improvements in rehabilitation.

show abstract

Differenzielles Gangtraining in der stationären Rehabilitation bei Knie- oder Hüft-TEP

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

An Exploratory Meta-Analytic Review on the Empirical Evidence of Differential Learning as an Enhanced Motor Learning Method

An Exploratory Meta-Analytic Review on the Empirical Evidence of Differential Learning as an Enhanced Motor Learning Method

Comparing the Effects of Differential and Visuo-Motor Training on Functional Performance, Biomechanical, and Psychological Factors in Athletes after ACL Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparing the Effects of Differential and Visuo-Motor Training on Functional Performance, Biomechanical, and Psychological Factors in Athletes after ACL-Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About